Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent performance during the Supreme Court oral arguments in Little v. Hecox highlighted a troubling gap in her understanding of fundamental legal concepts. This case is pivotal, as it scrutinizes whether states, like Idaho, can ban boys who identify as transgender from participating in girls’ sports at the school level. The significance can’t be overstated; engaging with issues of sex and gender in law is crucial in today’s climate.
In previous instances, Jackson’s lack of clarity regarding gender definitions garnered attention during her confirmation hearing. When pressed by Senator Blackburn, she infamously responded with, “I’m not a biologist,” leaving critics with ample fodder for mockery. Now, it appears she has expanded her ambiguity to encompass legal terminology.
During the oral arguments, Hashim Mooppan, supporting Idaho’s position, discussed the concept of “tailoring” a law to meet constitutional scrutiny. This principle is essential in law, requiring laws to be appropriately broad or narrow based on the scrutiny level they face. Yet, Jackson appeared puzzled. She asked Mooppan why the state needed such precision, suggesting the state should make exceptions rather than tailor laws to meet scrutiny standards. Mooppan clarified her misstep: “That’s literally what it means, to tailor your law.” This exchange struck observers as particularly troubling. Dan McLaughlin from National Review noted, “You gotta be pretty bad as a Justice to get schooled this hard by a lawyer arguing in front of you.”
What compounds the situation is that Jackson is not just out of touch with basic definitions; her statements during these arguments convey a general lack of grasp regarding her judicial role. As she ventured into the realm of gender-based criteria, she reiterated that the definition of a girl should include only those “girl-assigned at birth.” This statement echoed her previous gaffes, highlighting her failure to grasp concepts central to the case at hand and further solidifying the perception that she may lack adequate legal expertise.
In a world clamoring for clarity on legal and gender issues, Jackson’s apparent confusion only adds to the chaos. Her insistence on wading into complexities without clear definitions is not just amusing—it raises serious questions about her qualifications. Instead of leaning on her infamous line “I’m not a biologist,” she took the more precarious route, echoing “I’m not a legal expert.” The stakes are high, and the legal community watches closely as her reasoning falters under scrutiny.
"*" indicates required fields
